Untangling the Balinese Bind: Binding and Voice in Austronesian
Theodore Levin (MIT)
Voice alternations in Balinese interact with binding phenomena in a way that appears problematic for
standard views of the A/A-bar distinction. In simple sentences, movement to Spec-TP does not create
new antecedents for binding, suggesting that Spec-TP is an A-bar position. In raising constructions,
however, movement to the higher Spec-TP does create new antecedents for binding, behavior expected of
an A-position. This paradox is dubbed the Balinese Bind by Wechsler (1998), who uses the phenomenon
to demonstrate the superiority of HPSG approaches. In this paper, I argue that the paradox is illusory, and
that Balinese Spec-TP is an unambiguous A-position, if we adopt a new account of the Balinese voice
system and the Agree-based theory of Binding advanced by Rooryck and Vanden Wyngaerd (2011;
R&V).
Voice/Binding Interactions: Balinese transitive verbs appear in two voices: morphologically unmarked
Objective Voice (OV) (1a); and Agentive Voice (AV) (1b), marked by a phonologically conditioned nasal
prefix. Data from Wechsler and Arka (1998) demonstrate that the preverbal nominal occupies Spec-TP in
both voices.
(1) a. Bawi adol
ida.
pig OV.sell 3sg
‘(s)he sold a pig’ b. Ida ng-adol bawi.
3sg AV.sell pig
'(s)he sold a pig'
In an OV reflexive construction (2a), it is the internal argument (IA) in Spec-TP that must be reflexive, as
if Spec-TP were an A'-position, invisible to Binding Theory — so it is the vP-internal θ-positions that
count as the crucial A-positions for Binding (as argued by Guilfoyle, Hung, and Travis' (1992: GHT) for
Malagasay). This conclusion is compatible with AV reflexives, in which it is once again the internal
argument that is reflexive:
(2) a. Ragan idane cingakin ida
self
OV.see 3sg
‘(s)he saw himself/herself’ b. Ida n-yingakin ragan idane
3sg AV-see self
‘(s)he saw himself
Raising/Binding Interactions: Ngenah ‘seem’ optionally takes an experiencer-PP complement. A raised
NP subject can bind an anaphor embedded within that PP (3). This is completely unexpected if Spec-TP
is an A-bar position:
(3) Takonang tiang apa [iai ngenah sig awaknei jelek sajan].
OV.ask 1st Q 3sg seem to self
bad very
‘I asked (him) whether he seemed to himself to be very ugly.’ Analysis of OV/AV: Recall that OV is morphologically unmarked, like the English active voice. I argue
that Balinese v never assigns Case, so the clause has one fewer case assigner than its English active
counterpart. T (not v) assigns Case to the IA, which first raises to raises above the EA in Spec-vP and
then to Spec-TP because it cannot receive case in-situ (Boskovic 2007). The EA is incorporated,
exempting it from the Case Filter (Baker 1985, passim.). Evidence for incorporation is provided in (4)
and (5):
(4) In OV, EA is obligatorily indefinite
I
Wayan gugut cicing/*cicing-e ento
ART W.
OV.bite dog
dog-DEF that
'A dog/*the dog bit Wayan’!
(5) In OV, EA and V must be adjacent
a. Siap-e
uber
cicing ke jalan-e
chicken-DEF OV.chase dog into street-DEF
‘The dog chased the chicken into the street.’
b. uber cicing ke jalan-e siape-e
c. *uber siap-e cicing ke jalan-e
d. *siap-e uber ke jalan-e cicing
AV morphology reflects a special additional Case-assigning head (Voc) merged above vP, which
provides a new source of case for the IA, which raises to Spec-VocP. T then assigns case to EA, which
raises to Spec-TP, much as in English active constructions.
Solving the Balinese Bind: R&V propose that self-anaphors have unvalued φ-features and raise to SpecvP, where they probe the EA. If in OV, every Balinese IA raises above the EA, we expect anaphors to
behave the same. Whether the anaphor continues to Spec-TP (2a) or Spec-VocP (2b) is determined by
structure added after the anaphoric relationship has already been established. The behavior of raising (3)
follows almost as straightforwardly. The experiencer anaphor covertly adjoins to Spec-vP, where it ccommands the embedded subject and values its φ-feature. The embedded subject raises to Spec-TP for
case reasons. Similar examples from Wechsler and Wechsler & Arka in which the raising-to-subject verb
is replaced by a raising-to-object verb whose own voice can be varied follow similarly.
Under the proposed analysis, The Balinese Bind dissolves allowing us to capture the facts without special
stipulations about the A/A-bar distinction. This is an improvement over previous theories which cannot
capture the Balinese Bind (GHT), or which do so via altering the distribution of A/A-bar positions (Travis
1998). Additionally, the account relies on, and thus supports, a novel proposal concerning the
Austronesian voice system, which may be successfully applied to other Austronesian languages with
some modification.
[745 words]
References
Baker, Mark. (1985). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Boskovic, Zeljko. (2007). “On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More
Minimal Theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 39:589-644.
Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, and Lisa Travis.(1992). “SPEC of IP and SPEC of VP: Two
Subjects in Austronesian Languages”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
10.3:375-414.
Rooryck, Johan and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. (2011). Dissolving Binding Theory. Oxford:
Oxford UP.
Travis, Lisa. (1998). “Theta-Positions and Binding in Balinese and Malagasy”. Canadian Journal
of Linguistics 43(3/4):435-467.
Wechsler, Stephen. (1998). “HPSG, GB, and the Balinese Bind”. In Lexical And Constructional
Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, ed. G. Webelhuth, A. Kathol, and J.-P. Koenig.
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 179-195
Wechsler, Stephen and I. Wayan Arka. (1998). “Syntactic Ergativity in Balinese: An Argument Structure
Based Theory”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:387-441.